* Nicolas CANIART <nicolas@caniart.net>, 2011-06-05, 12:06:

* Package name : python-sphinx-aafig


Why such a package name? It's neither the upstream name
(sphinxcontrib-aafig) nor policy-compliant[0] name for the binary
package (python-sphinxcontrib-aafig).



* URL : http://pypi.python.org/sphinxcontrib-aafig/


I think you meant: http://packages.python.org/sphinxcontrib-aafig/


* License : BOLA


This is not a good license[1]. Please tell upstream to use something
sane, e.g. the Expat license[2].



Description : Embedded ASCII art figures in Sphinx documentations


sphinxcontrib-aafig would depend on aafigure, which is currently
orphaned. Please consider adopting it.



[0] http://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/python-policy/ch-module_packages.html#s-package_names
[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2011/01/msg00054.html
[2] http://www.jclark.com/xml/copying.txt

--
Jakub Wilk


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20110605120652.GA5880@jwilk.net">http://lists.debian.org/20110605120652.GA5880@jwilk.net

2011/6/5 Jakub Wilk <jwilk@debian.org>:
> * Nicolas CANIART <nicolas@caniart.net>, 2011-06-05, 12:06:
>>
>> * Package name * *: python-sphinx-aafig
>
> Why such a package name? [...]

Done.

>
>> * URL * * * * * * : http://pypi.python.org/sphinxcontrib-aafig/
> I think you meant: http://packages.python.org/sphinxcontrib-aafig/

Yep that's the one I put in the control file, sorry.

>
>> * License * * * * : BOLA
>
> This is not a good license[1]. Please tell upstream to use something sane,
> e.g. the Expat license[2].


Asked, but upstream does not seem to agree with Gunnar statements...
More over this license was discussed back in 2006 [1,2] on
debial-legal and was said dfsg compliant. It is also mentioned in
other places like [3], but is not either in the free or non-free list
found at [4].
>
>> *Description * * : Embedded ASCII art figures in Sphinx documentations
>
> sphinxcontrib-aafig would depend on aafigure, which is currently orphaned.
> Please consider adopting it.
>

I might, if we can agree on the license problem. And then I am still
looking for a sponsor

Regards,
Nicolas

1: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/01/msg00098.html
2: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/03/msg00508.html
3: http://wiki.debian.org/CopyrightNotices
4: http://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses
5: http://www.debian.org/legal/licenses/index.html (en or fr)


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: BANLkTimqwe+9psXNiUxUYMyo4totGC0U6w@mail.gmail.com ">http://lists.debian.org/BANLkTimqwe+9psXNiUxUYMyo4totGC0U6w@mail.gmail.com

Hi,

So is BOLA a DFSG compliant license or not ? Who is to decide ?
If not, what should be done with BOLA licensed software packages in main ?
If it is, again, I am still looking for a sponsor. Package files are
here: http://caniart.nicolas.free.fr/debian/

Thanks,
Nicolas.

>>> * License * * * * : BOLA
>>
>> This is not a good license[1]. Please tell upstream to use something sane,
>> e.g. the Expat license[2].
>
>
> Asked, but upstream does not seem to agree with Gunnar statements...
> More over this license was discussed back in 2006 [1,2] on
> debial-legal and was said dfsg compliant. It is also mentioned in
> other places like [3], but is not either in the free or non-free list
> found at [4].
>>
[...]
>
> 1: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/01/msg00098.html
> 2: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/03/msg00508.html
> 3: http://wiki.debian.org/CopyrightNotices
> 4: http://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses
> 5: http://www.debian.org/legal/licenses/index.html (en or fr)
>


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: BANLkTi=hos7KfGb5suJ=M_Lu_i3iuXJZ-g@mail.gmail.com">http://lists.debian.org/BANLkTi=hos7KfGb5suJ=M_Lu_i3iuXJZ-g@mail.gmail.com

On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 5:36 PM, Nicolas CANIART <nicolas@caniart.net> wrote:

> *So is BOLA a DFSG compliant license or not ? Who is to decide ?
> *If not, what should be done with BOLA licensed software packages in main ?

This has gone unanswered for a while, I wanted to voice my opinion on
the matter.

The decision comes ultimately to the FTP-Masters, that decide to
accept or not a package with a certain license. Even though the BOLA
license might be discouraged for new developments, it has already been
accepted for a couple of packages in Debian (darcsweb and libfiu) and
so I don't think it's useful to discuss if it should be accepted or
not, since it's already being accepted.

I'm working with Nicolas with the intention of sponsoring his package.

--
Besos,
Marga


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: BANLkTiksjm9mPxHg9HRZXE5Om5xV=-EPqw@mail.gmail.com">http://lists.debian.org/BANLkTiksjm9mPxHg9HRZXE5Om5xV=-EPqw@mail.gmail.com